As the US debates expanding its campaign against the Islamic State beyond Iraq and Syria, the leading US civil liberties group is intensifying its efforts to force transparency about lethal US counterterrorism strikes and authorities.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will file a disclosure lawsuit for secret Obama administration documents specifying, among other things, the criteria for placement on the so-called “kill list” for drone strikes and other deadly force.

Information sought by the ACLU includes long-secret analyses establishing the legal basis for what the administration terms its “targeted killing program” and the process by which the administration determines that civilians are unlikely to be killed before launching a strike, as well as verification mechanisms afterward to establish if the strike in fact has caused civilian deaths.

The suit, to be filed in a New York federal court, also seeks basic data the Obama administration has withheld about “the number and identities of individuals killed or injured” in counterterrorism strikes, according to the ACLU filing. In February 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who favors the drone strikes, estimated they had killed 4,700 people.

“Over the last few years, the US government has used armed drones to kill thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians. The public should know who the government is killing, and why it’s killing them,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU, told the Guardian.

The ACLU suit proceeds after the Obama administration disclosed none of the lethal counterterrorism documentation through a Freedom of Information Act request the civil liberties group launched in October 2013. According to the new lawsuit, the departments of state, justice and defense, as well as the CIA, have stonewalled the ACLU’s requests for nearly 18 months.

Advertisement

Recent legal history suggests the ACLU is in for an uphill court struggle. The Obama administration, which has called itself the most transparent in history, has thus far repelled or delayed ACLU lawsuits for disclosure around drone strikes and the 2011 assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen and al-Qaida propagandist. Additionally, the administration is fighting the ACLU on the legality of its bulk surveillance activities and to prevent the release of thousands of graphic photographs detailing Bush-era torture by the CIA and military.

Yet the administration has seen the courts chip away at its blanket denials of documents sought by the ACLU. Most of the intelligence community’s disclosures of surveillance memos since Edward Snowden’s revelations have followed the administration’s courtroom losses to the ACLU and other civil-liberties groups. In June, the second circuit court of appeals forced the Department of Justice to release much of a critical 2010 memo blessing the killing of Awlaki. (The ACLU is seeking the release of 10 more major intelligence memos related to targeted killing.)

Colleen McMahon, the federal judge who initially denied that memo’s release in 2013, ruled against the ACLU with regret, writing that loopholes in transparency laws benefitting the government left her “stuck in a paradoxical situation” that she likened to Alice in Wonderland. Since the new lethal-force lawsuit is related to the Awlaki one, McMahon may be the federal judge who hears it.

The new ACLU suit seeks to pierce the veneer of assurances by President Obama that the drone strikes and other lethal counterterrorism practices his administration has embraced have been restricted.

Obama announced he was raising the still-undisclosed standards for launching drone strikes in May 2013 and insisting on “strong oversight of all lethal action”. He said future strikes would require “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured”.

His White House portrayed the acknowledgment of the strikes as a transparency milestone, but the administration still refused to disclose the processes and legal memoranda underpinning the speech.

While estimates indicate that the drone strikes, launched by both the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, have declined since Obama’s speech, a November report by the human-rights group Reprieve found that Obama’s drone strikes had killed 1,147 people in pursuit of only 41 men, prompting questions about the rigor of the process employed by the administration to launch attacks.

Isis war to extend far beyond Iraq and Syria under Obama’s proposed plan

Read more

Obama’s 2013 speech and the drone-strike decline also occurred before the 2014 rise of the Islamic State and the renewed US war in the skies over Iraq. Not only are Predator and Reaper drones used in airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, but the administration’s desired legal authorization against Isis would permit global targeting of the jihadist army and its far-flung affiliates – which now include Boko Haram in Nigeria as well as allies in Libya, the Sinai peninsula and beyond.

That authorization “wisely does not include any geographical restriction”, argued the new defense secretary, Ashton Carter, in congressional testimony last week, “because [Isis] already shows signs of metastasizing outside of Syria and Iraq”.

Jaffer told the Guardian there could be no “legitimate justification” for persistent official stonewalling on civilian casualties and the procedures by which people, including US citizens, can find themselves on a secret government “kill list”.

“The categorical secrecy surrounding the drone program doesn’t serve any legitimate security interest. It serves only to skew public debate, to obscure the human costs of the program, and to shield decision-makers from accountability,” Jaffer said.

How, and why, to get out of your comfort zone and take those barrier-busting leaps of faith

All of us have fears—especially when it comes to taking risks in our professional and personal lives. In fact, it’s been said that FEAR stands for “Forget Everything And Run,” which is a logical reaction given that, by definition, risk is “the possibility of suffering harm or loss,” and involves “uncertain danger.” But, amid the vast upside possibilities, I prefer to negate the negative connotations associated with risk and repudiate the debilitating aversion to “learning the hard way.” People actually learn best by feeling the result of their actions, whether that result is positive or negative. Indeed, our most powerful knowledge base comes from taking small and large risks in life, and experiencing the consequences—the good, the bad and the ugly.

So many are understandably fearful of getting out of their comfort zone and taking those barrier-busting leaps of faith. However, for me, the word “risk” evokes a sense of excitement. Of limitless possibility. It reminds me of the famously insightful notion to “go out on a limb, because that’s where the fruit is.” Truer words cannot be spoken as risk is the preeminent propelling force that helps companies and individuals, alike, accelerate and achieve key success benchmarks.

Here are 4 pieces of wisdom to help you foil your fear of risk and supercharge positive change in your life:

1. Define and debunk your fears. Acting upon something with an unknown result can be an uneasy feeling, especially if something of value is at stake. But, what exactly are you afraid of? The amount of work involved for you? The potential financial loss if it doesn’t work out? The possibility of being perceived as a failure? Start by defining your fears with specificity, either in your mind or, better, by writing them down. During this process, be sure you conceive what you believe to be the “worst case scenario” and the probability of that coming to fruition. The worst case scenario rarely plays out, so you can rest easier on that front. Once all of your fears are itemized, for each and every one detail how you would move past it if it were to materialize. Determining the likelihood of each feared event and how each would be dealt with can give you an invigorating sense of reassurance.

2. Embrace fear. Many people are deterred from taking risks because of the fear of failure, disappointment and others’ perception of the failure. However, while failure is not something that anyone wants to experience, it statistically increases your chances of success. Did you know 9 out of 10 startup companies fail, and that the average millionaire goes bankrupt at least 3.5 times? So, statistically speaking, some would say that the more times you fail the higher chance you have of succeeding the next time. With fear, the key is to not only identify it, but actually take control and use it to drive you towards that which you covet from afar, stagnated by inaction. And, most importantly, never make a decision based on fear. I actually assert that you should appreciate fear as, without it, your achievement or success wouldn’t be so rewarding if fear wasn’t there to serve as a barometer and provide perspective on what was attained. Moreover, how boring life would be without fear. The process of understanding your fears, taking calculated risks, and achieving the success or parlaying the failure into something positive is a far more rewarding journey than a life lived without any risk-taking, regardless of the outcome.

3. Know when to put fear aside and take a risk. Don’t quit your job or end an important relationship on a whim! All justifiable risks have a time and a place—and that’s certainly not all day, every day. Ideal situations for risk taking are those where you have the time and/or resources needed to “rescue” yourself should your pre-determined worst case scenario present. The risks with the most at stake are also best taken when time is on your side and you can put contingency efforts—Plan B, C, and D—in place if needed. It’s also better to take a big risk when you are stable, such as when finances and life circumstances are on your side—optimally when you have a support system should things take a turn for the worse. All of that said, there is another ideal circumstance for a big risk that’s actually quite the opposite: when your back is against the wall, and you don’t have that much to lose. When your only way out is up, it’s time to take that leap of faith.

4. Leveragefailure, don’t fear it. Focusing on the positive is where your mindset should be, however, should you fail, you do need to deal with that reality in a constructive way. The most important aspect of leveraging failure is knowing exactly why you failed. Dissect the situation and identify all possible and real causes of the breakdown. It can also be helpful to enlist the help of a third party, such as a friend, family member, colleague or a consultant or life coach, who can lend objective outside perspective and provide neutral insight. Sometimes it’s difficult to “see the forest through the trees.” Only from a comprehensive understanding of what went wrong can you move forward with the same confidence with which you started. The second most important part is not losing hope. Don’t let failure consume you, but rather use it as a learning tool and a resource that will help you attain your next goal.

Before you embark upon an anxiety-provoking or downright frightening journey rife with risks, measure your resolve by first asking yourself if you are willing to go through four defeats to achieve the fifth win that makes you a success? Remember: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” No guts, no glory!

Andy Thompson is an international faith leader, life coach, cultural commentator and pastor of one of America’s 50 largest congregations. As a highly regarded speaker, Thompson shares his inspirational message for realizing personal and professional success through conferences, books and through media outlets worldwide. He may be reached at www.AndyThompson.tv or via Twitter @PastorAndyWOCC.

The Obama administration has reacted furiously to an open letter to Iran from Republican senators aimed at derailing nuclear negotiations. The White House accused them of seeking to circumvent the constitution and trigger a “rush to war”.

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, also poured derision on the Republican letter in a statement expressing astonishment that members of Congress would seek to undermine a US administration by writing directly to a foreign power, and suggesting that the letter’s authors had much to learn about international and even US law.

However, the sharpest reaction to Monday’s open letter came from the White House. President Obama accused its 47 Republican signatories of “wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran”.

The US vice-president, Joseph Biden, said the letter, drafted by Tom Cotton, a freshman senator from Arkansas, was “expressly designed to undercut a sitting president in the midst of sensitive international negotiations”.

It was “beneath the dignity of the institution I revere”, Biden said in a statement.

The letter was published as the 18-month-long negotiations on the future scope of Iran’s nuclear programme approach a deadline at the end of this month for a framework agreement. The document, signed by all but seven of the Republican Senate majority, suggests that the Iranian leadership does not understand America’s constitutional complexities and warns that any agreement signed with the Obama administration could be overturned “with the stroke of a pen” by the president’s successor.

Biden said the Republicans’ constitutional argument was “as false as it is dangerous”. He said the “vast majority” of America’s international commitments through the nation’s history had taken effect without congressional approval, adding that the nuclear agreement, if signed, would also be a commitment to the other parties to the talks: the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China.

Advertisement

“In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country – much less a longtime foreign adversary – that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them,” Biden wrote.

Many commentators noted that the letter, like the Republican invitation to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to address Congress last week without consulting the White House, marked a dramatic break from the tradition that partisan politics should “stop at the water’s edge” and not spread into critical US defence and security policy abroad.

The White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, portrayed Republican tactics as dangerously reckless. “The rush to war or at least the rush to the military option that many Republicans are advocating is not at all in the best interest of the United States,” he said.

The New York Daily News went much further in denouncing the Republicans’ direct communication with a geopolitical adversary at the height of negotiations. It published photographs of some of the signatories on its front page, over the headline: “Traitors”.

Among the seven Republican dissenters who did not sign the Cotton letter was the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, who noted that its signatories were only Republicans, and that he was focused on gathering a bi-partisan two-thirds majority aimed at forcing Obama to submit any nuclear deal to Congress.

Zarif, like President Hassan Rouhani and several other senior members of the Iranian government, holds an advanced degree from a western university, and appears to have taken umbrage at the condescending tone of the senators’ letter. He delivered his own lecture in response.

“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he wrote.

It is as yet unclear what effect, if any, the letter and its fallout could have on the seven-party nuclear talks that are due to reconvene in Switzerland on Sunday.

According to deadline laid down by foreign ministers, the negotiations are supposed to produce a framework agreement by the end of March, including the main parameters of the issues in dispute, like Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity and the lifting of western sanctions. Diplomats then have until the end of June to fill the intricate details essential to making any agreement work.

We have laws against counterfeiting for good reason. It is money for nothing. Well not exactly nothing.

Counterfeiters have to invest real money upfront to buy the paper, inks, plates and presses, and also spend on manufacturing and distribution.

Like any business, they have to do work and consume resources in order to make a profit. But who in their right mind would condone it as legitimate business?

Yet that is exactly what the producers of Bitcoin and the other Digital Currencies would have us accept.

Just like counterfeiters, Bitcoin ‘miners’ have to spend real money to buy computer resources and huge amounts of electricity to make Bitcoins. And, just like counterfeiters, they have to swap their fake money (Bitcoins) for real money and real resources to realise the fraud.

There is one difference, of course. With old fashioned counterfeiting, the person accepting the fake money is the unsuspecting loser. In this modern fraud, the person accepting the Bitcoins in payment knows what they are getting. So most smart businesses only use it like ‘reward points’, as a hook or discount.

To identify the real loser, we need to first understand: who benefits?

Certainly the miners who are continuing to mine Bitcoins benefit… but it is getting harder and more costly, so the reward is diminishing, especially with the drop in value from over $1,000 to around $300 per Bitcoin more recently.

But what about the first people in? No one knows for sure, because the pseudonymous developer of Bitcoin (Satoshi Nakamoto) has chosen to keep his real identity secret, but it is speculated that the he scored around one million coins when it was easy to mine them at the start, and his was the only game in town. On today’s price, for no more effort than writing a bit of code, he would now net $300+ million.

If they were sold at their peak, our shy counterfeiter could now be worth over a $billion.

But that’s not the end. In December 2013, Bitcoin investor Cameron Winklevoss stated that the “… bull case scenario for bitcoin is… 40,000 USD a coin”… making a return of $40 billion – if our anonymous developer has decided to hang onto most of his original haul.

In fact, that’s only the start. The idea of fixing their quantity (21 million) and making them highly divisible (each Bitcoin can be split in 100,000,000 units) and slow to issue (now 25 coins each ten minutes – halving every 4 years to 2140), means that if we are foolish enough to accept Bitcoins as currency, the value of a single coin will skyrocket – as each coin is split to facilitate day to day transactions. If we say that each unit is ultimately worth one cent, this would make each Bitcoin worth $1,000,000.

Doubtless the counterfeiter hopes and dreams we let this fraud perpetuate. If he is patient, and hangs onto most of his loot till we ‘normalise’ it as ‘currency’, we will end up handing over to him and his family $1 trillion worth of real money. I can’t imagine a better fraud!

The irony is that one of the beneficial features of Bitcoins sold to the public is that they cannot be counterfeited! What’s not said is that they are counterfeit to start.

It’s no wonder others have hopped on the bandwagon to create their own ‘Digital Currency’- with many keeping their identities secret. I suspect their shyness may have a lot to do with knowing the fraud they have committed and wanting to make sure they never get caught.

And, it’s no wonder the Bitcoiners are pushing for people to buy their coins and trade in them!

Imagine if, instead of ‘Digital Currency’… people had been selling wads of fake dollar notes.

Bitcoiners like to tell us they are ‘mining’ the currency, like mining for gold.

But gold has value as jewellery and for industrial uses. Digital currencies are just bits and bytes in a computer for sending messages.

That said; Digital Currencies do have a lot to offer. The problem is not with the digital nature of the currency. The problem is that it is issued to people who have not contributed anything to society in return for it.

This ‘unearned’ right to society’s resources goes to the heart of what money is for.

When you break it down, money is simply a token or record.

Its purpose is to tell the world that the holder has contributed value (by working or investing) equal to the amount shown on the token (eg dollar note), or recorded electronically (eg in a bank account)… and has not consumed that value.

The token or record also represents a promise by society to repay in kind, the value denoted by the money (token/record).

When a person spends money, they consume resources. Once they spend it all, they and society are once again square. The principle is: first contribute; then consume.

The idea is that, in general, we should all be able to take out of society what we put in. The exception of course is tax, which diminshes out take out.

Money is the tool that gives effect to the principle.

Ideally, money tokens should cost nothing to produce. They should also be immune from counterfeiting, theft or destruction. And, they should only be issued for ‘value’.

The problem then arises: how to introduce new money into the system to support the increase in value and volume of transactions – as the economy grows?

If we allow people to create money for their own use and ‘spend it into the economy’, it means those creating the money get a right to consume society’s resources they have not earned… as in the case of Bitcoins.

Currently, we get over the problem by issuing new money as loans that must be repaid.

This is not my contention. It is asserted by no less than the Bank of England and has been stated emphatically by Mervyn King, then Governor of the Bank of England in a speech to the South Wales Chamber of Commerce on 23 October 2012: “When banks extend loans to their customers, they create money by crediting their customers’ accounts”.

It is as simple as: Debit $100 Loan to Customer A, while at the same time entering a Credit for $100 Deposit in the name of the same Customer A. The bank stays in balance… but suddenly, out of thin air, there is new money that Customer A can draw down.

It works this way for a very good public policy reason. When new money is issued to a borrower, they’ve done nothing to earn it.

The loan contract requires them to repay it. But that is only the ‘money’ transaction.

In the real world, the advance lets the borrower spend up-front to consume society’sreal resources. In order to repay this actual debt (to society), over time, they have to contribute their talents and money to add further real value to society … equal to the amount of the loan.

When the loan is repaid, the money disappears back into the thin air from which it came. It exists only so the social contract (that you can take out only what you put in), can be quantified.

Once the loan is fully repaid, the borrower and society are again square.

In the case of Bitcoin miners, there is no such social contract. Like counterfeiters, the more Bitcoins they produce and the more people they convince to take them up, the more of society’s resources they can consume without ever having to work or invest – to pay back to society what they take out.

And this is not the only downside. As time goes on, the mining becomes exponentially more difficult… consuming huge amounts electricity. By some estimates, even if all miners use energy efficient processes, the combined electricity consumption currently would be around 1.46 terawatt-h per year – equal to the consumption of about 135,000 American homes. This cost will rise exponentially, as more people try to mine. And, as more people try to mine, the chance of success goes down. It is extremely wasteful of resources… to no benefit.

The whole purpose is to create money you have not earned… except as a counterfeiter earns: by ‘printing’ money.

It would be far easier and much less costly to simply arrange for the Reserve Bank to send an electronic message to my bank enabling it to credit a one followed by nine zeros to my deposit account. I will promise to spend the money into the economy, just like our Bitcoin developer. It’ll be quicker, it won’t needlessly use up terawatt hours of electricity and it won’t have the other downsides associated with Bitcoin (see below)

The whole idea that it frees us from the banks is nonsense.

The Bitcoin ‘nodes’ that record the Bitcoin block chains are little different to banks recording your money in a Deposit Account… except, of course, the nodes are not regulated. This means that Bitcoins are used for nefarious transactions to a far greater degree than real money. And, unlike a password to a bank deposit, if you lose the code to your Bitcoin wallet, the coins are lost irretrievably. As well, you cannot get a credit, as it is impossible to reverse a Bitcoin transaction. There are a whole host of other problems listed in Wikipedia.

Also, as soon as people start depositing Digital Currencies for on-lending, if the money is lent out unwisely, and especially fraudulently, we will still have to regulate the Bitcoin lenders, just like any other financial institution.

But why even try to regulate the counterfeiters as legitimate businesses?

The Australian Tax Office is right to treat Digital Currencies as goods and not Currencies. Treasury, the Central Bank and Federal Authorities should be treating them as illegal goods… because they are purporting to be money.

I suspect the reason why this has not yet happened is because few people understand the nature of Bitcoin or how it works, while those in the know are selling it as a wonderful new ‘financial instrument’ that will save us from those terrible banks. What they leave unsaid is how Bitcoin is enriching the anonymous developer and other early adopters – for doing no more than creating and selling an electronic message.

It is very similar to the way derivatives were sold to a naive world as a wonderful new ‘financial instrument’ to spread risk… in the lead up to the GFC. The only people who got rich in that little game were the sellers. With Bitcoin, it is the developer and to a lesser extent the later miners. And potentially the copy cats, if we allow it to proliferate.

We can’t stop individuals creating Digital Money, just like we can’t stop people counterfeiting dollar notes… but just like tradtional counterfeiting, we can make it plain that it is illegal to create it and illegal to knowingly use it. This may push it underground… but it is already used in criminal transactions. Making it illegal at least clarifies its immoral genealogy for the bulk of the population who should have no part in it.

However you look at it, Digital Currencies are a bad idea if they allow the issuer to create money for their own use. We’ve been through it before when banks issued their own currencies. This practice was stopped long ago for good reasons.

Let’s not repeat history, just because the counterfeit tokens are electronic and not paper.

Then let’s look at the positives of a Digital Currency, and design one that fulfils our social contract: so any new Digital Currency is only issued to recognise value already contributed, or as a loan that must be repaid. Just like real money.

Michael Haines is CEO and founder of VANZI (Virtual Australia and New Zealand Initiative), a stakeholder driven Initiative to develop the Digital Built Environment:

“An authorised enduring federated fully-integrated secure 3D+ computer model of the Natural and Built Environment (inside and out, above and below ground) on all scales required for decision making, together with all Legal Entitlements, for every property over time” – saving users $billions pa throughout the Property Cycle, from planning to decommission.

The CETO Unit – a fully submerged buoy tethered to a pump on the seabed. Image courtesy of AREA.

In an Australian-first, wave energy is supplying electricity to the national grid as a result of Australia’s investment in a broad range of renewable energy technologies.

Minister for Industry and Science Ian Macfarlane officially switched on Carnegie’s Perth Wave Energy Project at Garden Island in Western Australia on Wednesday (18 February), which is supported by an investment of $13.1 million of Federal Government funding through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. The Australian Government is investing a further $13 million in developing the next generation of Carnegie’s wave technology.

“This project will supply power to Australia’s largest naval base, HMAS Stirling, in a tremendous achievement for both Carnegie and wave energy in Australia,” Macfarlane said.

“It’s the first time in Australia’s history that a renewable wave power array has been connected to one of our major electricity grids.

Dual benefits

“The project has the dual benefit of also including a desalination plant, which produces zero-emission fresh water from the waves.

“CETO wave energy technology is a world-leading home grown product that has been developed over 10 years by Carnegie.

“The submerged buoys operate under water, away from large storms and not visible from land, moving with the motion of the waves to drive offshore seabed pumps.

“Australia has great potential for further wave energy applications, with the resources on our south and south-west coast among the best in the world. It makes sense to tap into this renewable potential that will help diversify our energy mix.

“The Carnegie project is great evidence of a commercial success in renewable energy. This type of practical application will guide future development of Australia’s renewable energy sector.

“The Australian Government is investing further to support advances in wave technology, through a second tranche of funding of $13 million for Carnegie’s CETO 6 Project – which is in its preliminary design phase.

“Renewable energy is an important part of Australia’s energy profile, and the Australian Government is working to ensure it continues to play a role both here in Australia and through international applications.”

Kansas City, MO – Infegy, a provider of social media intelligence technology for marketing and research professionals, today released a report of “The World’s 50 Most Popular Brands of 2014.” The year-over-year report is based on data compiled through Infegy’s flagship product, Infegy Atlas, a next-generation analytics platform leveraging advanced algorithms to deliver brand and consumer insights in easily digestible stories and headlines.

The fully interactive report analyzed more than 800 brands and drew on billions of online conversations from 2014 and Infegy Atlas’ powerful analysis to determine:

The brands the people talk about most

Overall positivity and negativity surrounding each brand

Levels of positive purchase intent

The topics people reference most when talking about brands

Rankings based on several metrics including volume and sentiment

A umber of newcomers cracked the top 50, most notably Flappy Bird. Flappy Bird was the only game to hit the list, even though a number of other popular games, including the widely successful Clash of Clans, are tracked. FitBit saw the highest purchase intent at 36 percent, highlighting the emerging trend of wearable tech and how important fitness integration is for these devices.

Google claimed the top spot for the second year in a row thanks to volume of conversations, positive sentiment and overall passion for the brand. No. 6 Disney garnered the most positive brand sentiment, with an overwhelming 86 percent positive conversations. At No. 31 on the list, CNN experienced the most negative brand sentiment, with 52 percent negative, 41 percent positive, and 7 percent mixed feelings.

Though No. 4 Apple’s chatter peaked in September and October, coinciding with the launch of the iPhone 6, total conversations were down 32 percent compared to 2013. Of all brands, Chevrolet saw the biggest change in ranking, dropping 13 spots to No. 46, while Chipotle experienced the biggest increase, moving up 10 places to No. 30.

“As the popularity of online and social brands gains momentum, this report shows how the world is changing and how a new generation is interacting with and responding to brands,” said Justin Graves, CEO and founder of Infegy. “Marketers will need to make adjustments to their campaigns and initiatives in order to strategically reach consumers in a positive and engaging manner.”

To view the report and to see complete details on each of the 50 ranked brands, including gender, sentiment, purchase intent and trends, visit: top50.infegy.com.

Millions of Americans face a challenge in meeting their budgets every month – not just financially, but also in their time budgets, says investment advisor Reid Abedeen.

“Knowledge is power and time is often money, but what if you don’t have the time to empower yourself with knowledge? For many households, that often means losing out on thousands of dollars through tax deductions,” says Abedeen, a partner at Safeguard Investment Advisory Group, LLC (www.safeguardinvestment.com).

“As a family man myself, I understand what it means to work hard to provide the best possible for my wife and children. Had I not worked in the financial sector for almost two decades, I might not have understood how to best troubleshoot my tax return, I sympathize.”

Abedeen offers the following strategies that may be relevant for your family this tax season.

• Take tax deductions for capital loss. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately. However, you may deduct capital losses only on investment property, not on property held for personal use.

• Fund your retirement to the max. You can contribute up to $5,500 to an IRA in tax-year 2014, or $6,500 if you are age 50 or older. Workers in the 25 percent tax bracket who contributed $5,500 to an IRA would save $1,375 on their 2014 tax bills. You’ll want to check your eligibility and understand the deadline for the 2014 deduction. If you make a deposit between Jan. 1 and April 15, you need to tell the financial institution which year the contribution is for.

• Advisory fees are tax-deductible. Don’t feel like spending money to save and make money? There’s a workaround. Before closing the door on the possibility, inquire with a financial expert. Most are happy to give a free initial consultation, and you don’t have to be a millionaire to make it worth your while.

• Gift assets to children. You don’t even have to file a gift tax return on an asset that’s valued less than $12,000, which is not taxable. If the fair market value of the gifted asset is more than $12,000 per person per year, but less than $1 million, there is the requirement of filing a gift tax return, but you won’t be taxed. The gift still is not income taxable to the recipient.

• Deduct a home-based office when used for your employer. If space in your home is used exclusively and regularly for a trade, you can count that as a deductible. Calculate the square footage of your home office and divide the area of your office by the area of your house. If the percentage is 14 percent, for example, that represents the percentage of your total home expenses that can be allocated toward the home office deduction. For further questions, consult a professional.

“You’ll want to be very vigilant regarding these details of these deductions,” Abedeen says. “For any questions, I seriously recommend consulting a professional.”

About Reid Abedeen

Reid Abedeen is a partner at Safeguard Investment Advisory Group, LLC (www.safeguardinvestment.com). As an investment advisor, Abedeen has helped retirees for nearly two decades with issues such as insurance, long-term care planning, financial services, asset protection and many other areas. He holds California Life-Only and Accident and Health licenses (#0C78700), and holds a Series 65 license, and is registered through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Abedeen is a family man who owes much of his fulfillment in life to his wife, Smyrna, and his three children, Yusef, Leena and Adam.

A blogger known for his atheist views has been stabbed to death in Bangladesh, in the latest of a series of attacks on independent writers in the developing south Asian nation. Washiqur Rahman, 27, died of serious injuries inflicted in the assault on Monday morning in Dhaka, the capital. Police have arrested two men for […]

by Seth Fast growth comes from overwhelming the smallest possible audience with a product or service that so delights that they insist that their friends and colleagues use it. And hypergrowth is a version of the same thing, except those friends and colleagues quickly become even bigger fans, and tell even more people. Often, […]

Many organizations do not think about computer security until there is a breach or information being leaked for malicious purposes. Creating insecure passwords such as your name or a common word, could compromise your information or network. The video gives you some basic principles to mitigate security risks of your information.

Cybercrime Goes Mobile Thanks To Insecure Mobile Banking, mCommerce and mWallet Apps By Mark Laich Millions of consumers no longer visit a bank to deposit checks or conduct financial transactions. Instead they rely on the convenience of using their mobile devices to send money, view account balances and bank online. The same is true for […]